I’m new to this forum. But two threads have caught my attention: Rejecting evolution does not equal rejecting science and Evolutionary Creationists Apologetics. They present the direction which in my opinion is very important, but neglected. @Patrick_S puts the subject too mildly and imprecise, which allows for easy attack on his otherwise correct thesis. We need to use proper terms to be properly understood.
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring”
“Evolutionism is a term used to denote the theory of evolution.”
The evolution of species is a fact. Denying it is denying reality. Evolutionism (the Darwin’s theory) is a fake. Denying it is a step towards rational reasoning. There is a qualitative leap between evolution (of species) and evolutionism, which cannot be reasonably justified. The more we know, the more clear it is. But the inaccurate terms used, allow to defend evolutionism in a way, which is in fact defending the evolution of species. And we see examples in this thread.
Anyway, showing the fact, that evolutionism is unscientific, is as easy, as showing that economics (the queen of so called ‘social sciences’) is not a science. And we have many more examples of the ideological biases in our modern world. Their common denominator is the post-Enlightenment materialistic worldview. As Patrick correctly pointed, evolutionism is useless in any real science. But it is indispensable in defending the materialistic worldview. Ideology needs it. And here we get to the @NickolaosPappas thread. I agree, that we need a true, modern apologetics. Not only an answer to Darwinism. Real apologetics is simply a true, reasonable explanation of reality. Free from ideological biases. It is doable.
The question is: how to do it properly? Where to start? I think, first we should get rid of the false sciences standing on guard of the post-Enlightenment worldview, then clean up the real sciences from the fake theories like evolutionism. Don’t you agree?
Please, be patient and excuse me, my usual not so prompt responding. I prefer giving answers after some period for reflection.
I see, my post provoked many of you to continue your discussions started elsewhere. As a result there are only 4 replays to my original post. At least, according to biologos engine. I will not interfere with the off-topic discussions. I want to stay on topic. Moreover, I want to stay on topic objectively, reasonably and logically. Scientifically. And this requires some rigor. Discipline in thinking and expressing one’s thoughts.
Unfortunately, we have to. You see, to be rigorous and logical, to be able to build theories describing the laws of the universe, we have to use the language more strict than the common one. Logic, mathematics and science are built on such language. For example, consider this:
How to discuss with something like that? “Science is not some objective reality”. “Science is determined by consensus”. If it would be true, we would have stayed with the consensus that the Earth is flat. This definition is a nonsense.
Another example is the inability to see the difference between the evolution of species and evolutionism (the Darwin’s theory). I’ve assumed that most people here understand this difference. I was wrong. It needs to be explained. Someone here gave a pretty good explanation:
“Evolutionism is a naturalist ideology concerned with how things came to be and still do”.
Yes. That’s the point. “how things came to be”. That’s what I called “a qualitative leap between evolution (of species) and evolutionism”. Biological species (sometimes) evolve. Some of them change to adapt to changes in their environment. Why “sometimes” and “some”? Because we have many different kinds of dogs. They evolve very easily. While the great white shark and many other sharks, turtles, etc have not changed for millions or even hundreds of millions of years. Intriguing, isn’t it?
The fact that we can see species adapting to environment, does not allow us to say: “This is how species emerged on Earth”. The more we know, the more problems with this claim we find.
- The organisms that fit best any environment are tardigrades. They are the fittest. They are the answer to environmental conditions. Anything more complex is less fit.
- Evolution (as Darwinists understand it) cannot just stop, as it happened in case of sharks. It HAS TO BE a continuous process.
- Some of the irreducible complexity examples are unsolvable using random changes. At least, in such a short time as the age of the universe.
If we would find any object moving faster than light in (let’s call it so) normal circumstances, the Einstein’s theory would be falsified. One example of contradiction is enough. That’s how science works.
Will we be able to move to the apologetics part, now?